CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 up the issue of torture on their own initiative. However, the complainant maintains that, while they could not rule on the allegations of torture, the military judges should have reported the facts to the prosecutor so that he or she could launch an investigation. 3.8 The Court of Cassation cannot therefore review a final decision of the trial courts and is not competent to determine whether the complainant’s confession was obtained as a result of torture or to order an investigation into allegations of torture. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 4 August 2014, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and abuse of the right to file a complaint. 4.2 The State party first states that the complainant was arrested on 8 November 2010 during the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, which had been set up a few weeks previously by persons, including the complainant, who were affiliated to Saharan separatist groups in the vicinity of Laâyoune. The State party alleges that a campaign to encourage the local population to leave their homes and to occupy the camp was launched to bring pressure to bear on the authorities, with a view to securing social benefits for those persons. 4.3 The State party states that the complainant set up a militia, armed with knives, that was tasked with preventing the occupants from leaving the camp. When law enforcement officers who had been sent to dismantle the camp and restore public order approached, the complainant orchestrated and oversaw attacks against them that involved the use of knives, petrol bombs and ignited gas bottles. Eleven members of the security forces died as a result of the clashes; their deaths resulted in the prosecution and conviction of those who had instigated and carried out the attacks. 4.4 The State party explains that the security forces acted in accordance with the specific instructions of the public prosecutor’s office and that all the usual warning procedures were scrupulously respected. The complainant was arrested with 69 other persons on 8 November 2010 during the dismantling operation and was taken to the premises of the judicial brigade of the Royal Gendarmerie of Laâyoune, where he was remanded in custody in accordance with the law and placed under the effective supervision of the Crown Prosecutor General of the Laâyoune Court of Appeal. He was brought before the military investigating judge on 12 November 2010. 4.5 The complainant was formally charged with the crimes committed during the dismantling of the camp and sentenced by the Permanent Military Court of the Royal Armed Forces on 17 February 2013. 4.6 The State party notes that almost four years passed between the occurrence of the alleged acts and the submission of the communication to the Committee in March 2014 — a delay that it considers excessive. The State party further considers that the communication contains several inconsistencies. 4.7 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party notes that, following his conviction by the military court, the complainant entered an appeal in cassation. To date, the Court of Cassation has not ruled on the case. Moreover, the complainant has never filed a formal complaint about the torture and/or ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected, whether in police custody or thereafter, with any judicial authority or with any national authority. Indeed, he made no mention of the fact that he had allegedly been subjected to torture and/or ill-treatment at either the preliminary hearing on 12 November 2010 or the detailed hearing on 12 January 2011, even when assisted by a lawyer. 4.8 Furthermore, during the trial in February 2013, which was open to national and international observers, the defence team, which was representing all the defendants, mentioned the fact that four of them had allegedly been tortured and/or ill-treated without making any specific reference to the complainant. The judge was asked to order a medical examination of the four defendants in question. The complainant merely asserts that the authorities never agreed to undertake an investigation, even though he had taken no action whatsoever for that to happen. Moreover, the complainant has not demonstrated that domestic procedures were excessively long or ineffective. In accordance with the GE.17-06158 5